An Analysis of the Cross-Categorical Special Education A … · 2011-05-31 · An Analysis of the...

An Analysis of the Cross-Categorical Special Education

Program Model Design at McLane Elementary

by

Melissa Jean Bobinski

A Research Paper Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Master of Science Degree

In

Education

The Graduate School

University of Wisconsin-Stout

July, 2009

The Graduate School University of Wisconsin-Stout

Menomonie, WI

Author: Melissa nee Barker Bobinski

Title: An Analysis of the Cross-Categorical Special Education Program Model

Design at McLane Elementary

Graduate Degree/Major: MS Education

Research Advisor: Dr. Kenneth Welty

MonthlY ear: May 2009

Number of Pages: 72

Style Manuel Used: American Psychological Association, 5th Edition

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this evaluation was to validate the cross-categorical program model being

implemented at an elementary school in West Bend, Wisconsin by identifying the program

strengths and weaknesses. The design for this program evaluation is a management based

approach. Key questions were used to assess the program components from observations made

by parents and teachers in academic and social settings at school. An analysis of data from the

questionnaire revealed strengths in the areas of integration into the regular education classroom,

and student's displaying a positive attitude regarding the resource room. Improving parent

communication, and educating parents and staff on the Dubuque behavior model will address

identified program model weaknesses, leading to improved student outcomes at McLane

Elementary School.

11

IV

TABLE OF CONTENTS

................................................................................................................ Page

ABSTRACT. .. . .. .. . .. . ... . .. ... . .. ...... . .. ....... . ... ...... . ... .. . .... .. ... ... .. .... . .. . .. . .. . . . .. . .. . ... ii

List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vll

Chapter I: Introduction ............................................................................... 1

Purpose .................................................... ....................................... 1

Scope ...........•.................................................................................. 2

Stakeholders ...................................................................................... 2

Key Questions ............................................................................. :..... 3

Design ................................................................................ .............. 4

Limitations ........................................................................................ 4

Chapter II: Literature Review........................................................................ 5

Introduction ...................................................................................... 5

The Laws ......................................................................................... 5

The Term Best Practices ........................................................................ 6

Basic Needs of Special Education Students .................................................. 7

Learning Disabled Students. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Emotional Behavioral Students. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9

Cognitive Disabled Students ................................................................... 10

Special Education Program Models.. . ... .. . .. . ....... .. .... . .. ... . .. .... .. . .. . .. . .. . .... .... 11

Inclusion ..................................................................................... , .. 12

Resource Room

Self-Contained

13

13

v

Single-Categorical ............................................................................ . 14

Cross-Categorical ............................................................................ .. 15

Chapter III: Methodology ........................................................................... . 17

Introduction ..................................................................................... . 17

Subject Selection and Description ........................................................... . 17

Survey Design ......................................... ......................................... . 17

Instrumentation .................................................................................. . 18

Variables .. .................................................................................... '" 18

Data Collection Procedures . ................................................................. . 19

Data Analysis Procedures ..................................................................... . 19

Chapter IV: Results .................................................................................. . 20

Introduction .................................................................................... . 20

Setting ................. .......................................................................... . 20

Teacher Feedback ... .......................................... '" .............................. .. 21

Parent Feedback ..................... ........................................................... . 51

Chapter V: Discussion ................................................................................. . 58

Introduction ..................................................................................... . 58

Setting ......... ................................................................................. '" 58

Teacher Feedback .. " ......................... " . '" ...... " ............. '" ............. " ... .. 59

Parent Feedback ........ ....................................................................... . 60

Conclusion .................................................................................... . 62

Recommendations 63

References ................................. " .......................................................... . 65

Vi

Appendix A: Parent Survey ............................................................................... 67

Appendix B: Parent Letter.......................... ....... ........................................... 70

Appendix G: Teacher Survey........ ........................................ ... ......... ... ....... .... 72

Table 1:

Table 2:

Table 3:

Table 4:

Table 5:

Table 6:

Table 7:

Table 8:

Table 9:

List of Tables

Ethnicity at McLane Elementary ..................................................... .

Transitioned Quietly Between Classrooms ......................................... .

Independently Organized Materials ................................................... .

Integrated Back into Classroom Activities ......... '" .............................. .

Care of Reinforcements ................................................................ .

Attitude Toward Special Education Room .......................................... .

Special Education Instruction - Reading

Special Education Instruction - Writing

Special Education Instruction - Spelling

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

Table 10: Special Education Instruction - Math ...................... "" .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 30

Table 11: Special Education Instruction - Behavior. . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Table 12: Generalize Skills to General Education Classrooms ..... .... ........ ... ... ........ 32

Table 13: Pace of Special Education Instruction ............................................... 33

Table 14: Soundness of Special Education Instruction ......................................... 34

Table 15: Work Completed in an Appropriate Time Frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Table 16: Support Provided to Students ........... ......................................... ...... 36

Table 17: Support When Studying for Tests ..................................................... 37

Table 18: Support When Completing Tests .............. " .................... " ............ .. . 38

Table 19: Standards and Quality of Work ........... ""......................................... 3 9

Table 20: Adequate Support for Academic Success ............................................ 40

Table 21: Special Education Faculty Openness.................................................. 41

Table 22: Special Education Faculty Accessibility ............................. ""............ 42

Table 23: Special Education Faculty Flexibility ........... ..................................... 43

viii

Table 24: Special Education Student Pull-out ........... ....................................... 44

Table 25: Student Inclusion in the General Education . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Table 26: Reinforcement of Social and Behavioral Standards .................. .............. 46

Table 27: Support from Special Education with Behavior ...... '" . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Table 28: Knowledge of DUBUQUE .......... ........................ ........................... 48

Table 29: Open Communication Regarding Behavior ....... .... ...... ............ ...... ...... 49

Table 30: Overall Impressions of the Program .......... ........................................ 50

Table 31: Perceptions of Academic Progress ............... " . ... . . .. . .. . ...... .. .. .... .. .... .. . 51'

Table 32: Communication .......................................................................... 52

Table 33: Inclusion .................................................................................. 53

Table 34: Behavioral Models ....................................................................... 54

Table 35: Support.................................................................................... 56

Table 36: Homework ................................................................................ 56

Table 37: Overall Perception of the Program........... .......................................... 57

Chapter I: Introduction

Introduction

In 1997, the United States Congress passed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

to ensure that students with special education needs would have the opportunity to be educated

with non-disabled peers to the greatest extent possible with access to the general education

curriculum. In addition, provisions were made that supported the education of special needs

students. This pressured school districts and educators across the country to provide the support

necessary for disabled students of all categories to receive services in the least restrictive

environment. The information gathered from the literature review was used to determine the

factors of special education programming models. The purpose of this evaluation is to assess the

cross-categorical program model and the Dubuque behavior model being implemented at

McLane Elementary. The different perceptions from parents and staff provided valuable insight

in regards to recommendations made to validate the cross-categorical program model.

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to gather feedback from the 2008-2009 school year that

could be analyzed to improve the cross-categorical special education program model being used

at McLane Elementary to service students with Learning Disabilities (LD), Emotional

Behavioral Disabilities (EBD), Other Health Impairments (OHI), Cognitive Disabilities (CD)

and Autism! Aspergers during the upcoming years. McLane Elementary was chosen as the site

for this study because of the districts recent implementation of a new cross-categorical program

model in the fall of2008. The site sought to determine the program's strengths and weaknesses

according to staff and parents of the student's being serviced by the program model. In order to

determine where improvements needed to be made for the upcoming school year, an original

survey questionnaire was created by the examiner. The program model that was being used at

McLane Elementary and other schools in the district prior to the 2008-2009 school year was a

single-categorical program model. In this model, students were grouped and categorized into

caseloads and classes by the diagnosed disabilities written on the students' Individualized

Education Plan (IEP). The concern reported from the Director of Pupil Services was that

grouping students according to a disability limited their services and optimal educational

potential. With this single categorical program model students had the same IEP Coordinator (a

special educator assigned to the student to ensure that the students was receiving the appropriate

services); where with the new model IEP Coordinators would be assigned to specific students

based on their grade level. This was thought to give teachers a better opportunity to focus on a

curriculum level aimed to direct services for the special education students at that particular

grade level.

Scope

2

The scope of this study was to determine what specific components of the program model

were or were not observed. The study included participants of regular education teachers in

grades kindergarten through fifth grade, along with art, music, and physical education teachers.

Parents of those students participating in the cross-categorical program model were also asked to

take part in the evaluation. Excluded from this study were parents of students who only received

speech and language services.

Stakeholders

The stakeholders for the program evaluation were: the special education staff at McLane

Elementary, and the students. The principal at McLane Elementary, program support staff, and

pupil services were the clients that commissioned this program evaluation.

Key Questions

After discussion with the client's: special education staff, program support personnel, and

the principal of McLane Elementary the following key questions were developed and

incorporated into the survey questionnaire. The key questions that this evaluation sought to

answer based on feedback from staff members were:

1. How are students able to transition between the special education room and the regular

education classroom?

2. To what extent have staff members recognized progress in the areas of academic

instruction?

3. Are the student's receiving the proper amount of support from the special education

teachers and aides in the classroom?

4. Is the special education program structure/room set up in an effective way for students

and teachers?

3

5. Is there behavioral support available for staff members and students in the building that

require the extra support?

6. Do staff members and parents feel that the new cross-categorical program model at

McLane Elementary better fits the needs of the special education population?

The key questions that this evaluation sought to answer based on feedback from parents

were:

1. To what extent have parents recognized progress in the academic?

2. Are there open lines of communication between home and school that support the

student?

3. To what extent do parents see that their child is included within the different

environments in McLane Elementary?

4. Is the current behavior model of Dubuque understood and effective for their children?

5. To what extent have parents observed additional support from the district to be

supported?

6. What is the observed homework load for your child in special education?

Design

4

The design for this program followed a management based approach. An assessment of

data was completed from responses on the parent and teacher questionnaires to guide future

improvements in the cross-categorical program model at McLane Elementary. The analysis was

then used to make recommendations to the special education team stakeholders on what

modifications should to be made to validate the cross-categorical program model at McLane

Elementary.

Limitations

Prior to this evaluation the cross-categorical program model lacked specific components to

provide feedback on program success as it was initially implemented. Since this was the first

year McLane Elementary used the cross-categorical program model, data that could be used for

comparison did not exist. Also the anonymity of the questionnaire made people more

comfortable with being honest but also eliminated the opportunity to understand the objectivity

of each participant and where he/she was coming from.

Chapter II: Literature Review

Introduction

The purpose of the study is to evaluate the cross-categorical special education program

model being used at McLane Elementary to service students with Learning Disabilities (LD),

Emotional Behavioral Disabilities (EBD), Other Health Impairments (OHI), Cognitive

Disabilities (CD) and Autism/ Aspergers during the 2008-2009 school year. This chapter will

begin with a brief introduction ofPL 94-142 the Education of All Handicapped Law and IDEA.

Both were strong influences in the driving force of educational programming for special

educational students. Many ideas have been passed around as to what the best practices are for

special needs students. This term best practice signifies importance when creating a program

model that best suits students with special needs. Schools must follow laws and incorporate

research programs and strategies that have proven to support best practice. Taking into account

each student's disability, a program model is created based on the needs of students. These

forces are what ultimately led to the implementation of the new program model at McLane

Elementary.

The Laws

In 1975, Congress passed the Education of All Handicapped Children Act or PL 94-142.

With this law, states needed to provide free and appropriate education for all students with

disabilities from age three to twenty-one. At the time, many students that were identified as

handicapped attended separate or private schools. Vallecorsa (1983) reported that with PL 94-

142 schools needed to restructure their programming to allow students to be integr~ted back into

the public school system from private schools. This became known as mainstreaming. Twenty

5

two years later, Congress passed a similar law titled the Individuals with Disabilities Education

Act (1997), or IDEA, states the following:

To maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities including children in

public and private institutions or other care facilities are educated with children who

are not disables ... or removal of children with disabilities from the regular education

environment occurs only when the nature and severity of the disability is such that

education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aides and services cannot

be achieved satisfactorily. (p. 8)

6

PL 94-142 and IDEA were not alone in ensuring students with disabilities an appropriate

education. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, The American with Disabilities Act of

1990, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990 were also signed into law to

ensure fair education for all students with disabilities. This push from government led school

systems to create systems of best practices for students who required special tools, resources, and

models to learn.

The Term Best Practice

School districts and systems nation wide strive to provide students with the superlative

strategies to succeed. Special educators use the term best practice to describe what is being used

in their schools. However, many educators and administrators cannot determine what

qualifications a program needs to ensure that it truly is a program or strategy of best practice.

In an article written by Peters and Heron (1993), the term best practice is discussed and how this

term has been applied in a wide variety of contexts to showcase strategies or programs that the

experts believe to stand out above the rest. They continued to discuss that best practice may

concededly be referred to as a program/strategy/practice that is most promising, exemplary, or

emergent. Best practice could also be utilized as a way to determine program quality, and

integration potential. However, this provides a wide range of conceptualization, and

interpretations. This pointed out the high degree of inconsistency across literature, when

utilizing the term best practice.

7

Due to the laws Congress has passed and continue to implement, many general education

teachers are being held accountable for special education student's education, as the least

restrictive environment is often best practice. As reported by Palley (2006), "75% of all students

with disabilities spend at least 40% of their school day in the regular education setting. Ninety

six percent of all regular education teachers are responsible for teaching students with special

education needs" (p. 233). Following the laws of least restrictive environment while keeping up

with best practice, special educators must decide how to create the optimal learning environment

for the students with special needs.

Basie Needs a/Special Education Students

At McLane Elementary, the majority of students for this project fall into the following

categories: Learning Disabilities (LD), Emotional/Behavioral Disabilities (EBD), and Cognitive

Disabilities (CD). In order for appropriate programming to be determined, one must first

understand what the eligibility requirements identified for each category, and strategies or

programming that are the most effective. With this background knowledge a decision can be

made about the type of programming that best fits the needs of students with special needs in a

school district.

Learning Disabilities

According to the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (2009), to qualify for a

specific learning disability you must meet the following criteria: The child must have a severe

delay in classroom achievement along with a significant discrepancy between ability and

achievement along with information processing which contributes the child's academic delays.

With students who may be diagnosed with a learning disability it is important to pay attention to

what is identified as the specific learning disability. Many students may only have a reading

learning disability. When this occurs the student should only be receiving additional services in

the specified area of reading. According to Sparks and Richardson (1981), paying attention to

specific student's delays will assist in providing the correct programming. Sparks and

Richardson (1981) stated the following:

Every learning disabled child's education should include at least the following

components: 1. Every learning disabled child will be taught by a teacher trained and

certified to teach learning disabled children. 2. Programs for learning disabled

children will include the full-range of services specified in PL 94-142, matching the

intensity of the services to the severity of the child's disability. 3. Content of

instruction (curriculum) for learning disabled children will approximate that for all

children as the method of instruction needs to match the unique learning needs of

each child. (p. 61)

8

There is no one specific program model that will benefit LD students the most, but a variety of

interventions need to be taught within a given program model. Interventions need to be

structured to empower the students to be academically successful. Chamberlain (2006) indicated

that in order to determine what interventions need to be taught one must use a backwards

thinking process. The goals and demands need to be a priority and determined first in order to

move forward. Chamberlain concludes by stating when working backwards the best possible

instructional programs will be assembled, and that in turn measures their efficacy.

Emotional Behavioral Disabilities

In the state of Wisconsin in order for a child to be diagnosed of having an

emotional/behavior disability they must meet the eligibility requirements determined by the

Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. A synopsis of this eligibility includes: social,

emotional, and behavior functioning that deviates from what is generally accepted by age

appropriate peers. Behaviors must appear in school and at least one other setting, being severe,

chronic, and frequent.

Muscott (1995) discussed in his article the impact and challenges that students with

emotionallbehavioral disabilities bring to the inclusive school setting. Muscott and other critics'

worry that inclusion may lead to disastrous consequences particularly for those with emotional

behavioral disabilities because effective practices may be overlooked with the pressure for

change to occur. Schools must create a vision of inclusion for students with emotional

behavioral disabilities to serve as a foundation for inclusive programming to be successful.

9

One key component of educational programming is reducing the frequency and intensity of

emotional/behavioral outbursts so that the student is able to learn. In order for this to occur,

effective practices must be implemented. To assist a student who has excessive aggression and

disruptive behaviors the classroom environment can utilize positive, differential, and negative

reinforcement, precision requests, and behavioral momentum. Authors Landrum, Tankersley

and Kauffman (2003) reported that if a student has a deficit in one or more of the following

areas: social withdrawal, non-compliance, social skills, or language skills some techniques may

need to be applied in the classroom such as: time out, response cost, group-orientated

contingencies, continuous monitoring of student performance, direct instruction of individually

10

targeted behaviors, modifying of antecedents and consequences, and allowing the opportunity to

practice appropriate behaviors in natural settings.

With emotional and behavioral outbursts occurring with weaker intensity and diminished

frequency educators can begin tackling academic achievement. "Consequently, interventions

must target not only effective instruction designed to enhance achievement but also learning

strategies that enhance students' ability to attend to instruction, retain information, and apply

knowledge in appropriate contexts" (Landrum et aI., 2003, p.150). Direct instruction is a

technique widely used because it offers structure, sequencing, passing, frequency feedback, and

opportunities to practice. Class Wide Peer Tutoring (CWPT) has also shown to increase

student's engagement and response rates. In CWPT, students respond to questions using a game

like format and allow for peers to determine if they are correct or incorrect. This also helps give

students the opportunity to work with others who most likely will be modeling appropriate

emotional/behavioral skills. Lastly, monitoring student academic progress can help guide not

only the student, but also allow the educator to see where the student mayor may not need

additional or continual support. Before any programming or techniques are implemented one

must remember that teaching must occur not only academically, but also emotionally and

behaviorally for EBD students to be successful in the educational setting.

Cognitive Disabilities

A student who has qualified for a cognitive disability will often have a standard score of

two or more standard deviations below the mean or the child has been documented as having a

cognitive disability in the past. The child's condition is expected to last indefinitely. The child

must also display deficits (interpreted to mean two or more of the age related adaptive behavior

areas) in adaptive behavior as demonstrated by a standard score of two or more standard

11

,

deviations below the mean. Like students with learning disabilities and emotional behavioral

disabilities student strategies, with in place supports is better at determining student success than

anyone given program. Cushing, Clark, Carter and Kennedy (2005) indicated in their article

that educators should provide students who have cognitive disabilities with the supports and

adaptations necessary to create an optimum learning environment just like any educator should

provide for other students.

Adaptations can be easily developed and implemented to a program model that a school is

using with the underlying goal of promoting social and academic participation. The most

important component being that the adaptation occurring is the least intrusive option. This is

what educators must consider first. "If an adaptation isolates a student from their peers or

hinders their participation in class activities it is too intrusive and should be changed" (Cushing,

et aI., 2005, p. 12). Age-appropriate adaptations involve using similar material that the same-age

students without disabilities are using, however making modifications to those materials to

enhance the student's skills. Functional adaptations are effective in helping students participate

in the general education setting. Meaningful modifications allow the student to realize why the

adaptation/modification has been made and the purpose behind it so that the student can self-

monitor his/her progress towards goals in the future.

Special Education Program Models

While reform in special education was welcomed, not all reform initiatives were embraced

by all special educators, which evolved into controversy and a variety of program models being

created in schools nation wide (Kutash et aI., 2000). The fact is that all students who have a

disability have different needs from others who may have a similar or different disability.

Researchers, educators, administrators, and psychologists all over the world search and learn

12

about new models that can best meet the needs of a variety of students. In an article written by

Lloyd & Kavale (1998) it was stated that before new interventions are adopted they need to be

studied to further determine if the program has the capability of benefiting the students the

intervention will be servicing. The current laws in place ensure that a program that is created for

a student must be in the least restrictive environment. "Special education practice is buffeted by

many theories, expert recommendations, and fads. Some are widely adopted because of teacher,

parent, or administrative opinion. Others are adopted because they have appeal" (Lloyd &

Kavale, 1998. p. 3). However, most importantly the program or intervention being adopted must

meet the needs of the students it is servicing.

Inclusion

Inclusion in regular education is one program model that school districts have been

implementing. Patrick A. Schwarz (2007) a professor at National Lewis University in Chicago

studied a fourth grade student named Oscar who had significant auditory processing problems

and was an English language learner. The school Oscar attended adopted the inclusive

classroom model. With the inclusion model all special education students would receive their

services in the general education classroom. In this inclusive model, services of special

education support, ESL, and speech and language were provided primarily in the general

education classroom through adaptations, differentiated instruction, and universal design

strategies.

The inclusion model requires constant collaboration between special education support

teacher and the general education teacher in the classroom. Weeldy meetings and e-mailing of

lesson plans are components that are necessary to ensure success in the inclusive classroom

13

environment. The special educator and classroom teacher must be together in the understanding

of the student's needs and adaptations to ensure success in the general education classroom.

Resource Room

A second type of programming that is commonly used is having a resource room to

accommodate those students who need extra help in specific academic areas where the general

education classroom is not the least restrictive environment. Vallecorsa (1983) found that often

times the least restrictive alternative to the general education classroom setting is to have a

resource room. Students served in such arrangement attend the classes in the resource room

where they require a small classroom environment and small group instruction. Students then

spend the remainder of their day in a regular classroom setting. The popularity of this approach

is reflected in the large number of resource classes currently available in schools. Within these

resource rooms the terms categorical or cross-categorical are used. In categorical programming

there are separate rooms for students with specific disabilities. In cross-categorical programming

schools have resource rooms set up by grade level for students with special needs.

Self-Contained

It is extremely difficult to find a program that is entirely self-contained. This is due to the

laws stating the students must be educated in the least restrictive environment (LRE). A self

contained setting refers to students being removed from the general education classroom to

receive their instruction. Bouck (2008) defined that self-contained settings occur when over 60%

of the students' day is spent in a separate room apart from the general education students.

Schwarz (2007) argues that grouping a wide variety of students in the same self-co~tained

classroom just because they share a diagnosis defeats the idea of individualization. All students

14

with the same disability do not require the same supports, modifications and adaptations in order

to learn.

Another reason why many self-contained programs are not frequently seen is because of

the negative influence it has on a student's social experiences. Bouck (2008) shared that students

experience negative social consequences while being pulled out because they are being educated

away from their peers. A second concern that arose is the lack of role models a pull out room

may contain. When students are with their general education peers they can observe behaviors,

interactions, and conversations that are acceptable to their grade level.

Single-Categorical

Traditionally programs were categorical, in that separate classrooms were operated for

different disability areas. According to Vallecorsa (1983), this model implied that: categorical

disabilities are operationally defined and functional, children of one disability are homogeneous,

and all exceptional children in need of special service will be identified and served adequately

via a categorical model.

In the case of this study at McLane Elementary, single-categorical programming was the

type of programming that was utilized prior to moving towards a cross-categorical programming

model. Prior to 2008 McLane Elementary had a CD room, an EBD room, and an LD room. If

there was a first grade student diagnosed with a learning disability they would be placed in the

same room as a fifth grade LD student to receive any additional services needed to assist them in

education. In this model, students would have the same IEP coordinator and/or teacher from

kindergarten through fifth grade. This provided parents and students with consistency, however

if the relationship had difficulties it remained unchanged for the entirety of the students career at

McLane Elementary.

15

Vallecorsa (1983) reported that traditional categorical models are difficult to administer in

some situations. In some school districts there may not be enough students with the same

diagnosed disability to justify a classroom for that disability. Depending on the student

population, student needs, and school district, a single-categorical program model may work

best. However, students must always be placed in the least restive learning environment, as with

any programming model being used.

Cross-Categorical

A cross-categorical program model is similar to a single-categorical program model despite

one crucial component: grouping by disability. Bouck (2008) defined a cross-categorical

program as being a program that services students from multiple disability categories together in

one room. This is the program model for this study project.

McLane Elementary is not divided by student ability, but rather by grade level. One

teacher is responsible for kindergarten and third grade special education students. A second

teacher is responsible for first and second grade education students, and the final teacher is

responsible for the fourth and fifth grade special education students. With this model students

are not divided by disabilities, but by grade levels.

Vallecorsa (1983) discussed extensively that the cross-categorical programming model

offer flexibility. Students from several disabilities can be serviced within the same class as their

peers if grouped by grade level or in the same group as others who have similar instructional

needs. When done effectively the cross-categorical philosophy emphasizes students' functional

abilities as the basis for placement. It also recognizes that students from different categories can

have overlapping education needs and that those with similar needs can be grouped together for

16

instruction with success. This model also allows for peer teaching where students must learn to

work cooperatively regardless of ability and learn from each other.

The continued growth of cross-categorical programs is likely; however in order for growth

to continue it must have continued success. Vallecorsa (1983) continued to report that to ensure

success with the cross-categorical program models, classes must serve the right children.

Classrooms must be operated by teacher who can effectively meet the needs of all students

placed in that learning environment. The main idea behind that success is part-time placement.

Students should not be spending 100% of their day in this special education classroom. It is

important that they are receiving instruction in areas where it is the least restrictive environment.

In order to ensure that success, an extreme amount of emphasis goes back to referring a child for

special education, and determining eligibility. Vallecorsa (1983) wrote the following:

Since administrators, psychologists, counselors and regular classroom teachers all

playa role in a making special education placement decisions, it is essential that they

understand that nature and intent of cross-categorical programming. They can greatly

influence the appropriateness of placement decisions. Further, since students from

cross-categorical resource program spend part of their day in the regular classroom

setting, training programs must prepare teachers to deal with these youngsters

effectively. (p. 135)

17

Chapter III: Methodology

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to gather feedback from the 2008-2009 school year needed

to improve the cross-categorical special education program model being used at McLane

Elementary to service students with Learning Disabilities (LD), Emotional Behavioral

Disabilities (EBD), Other Health Impairments (OHI), Cognitive Disabilities (CD) and

Autism/Aspergers during the upcoming years. Key questions that clients wanted assessed from

the staff evolved around: transitioning between special education room and classroom, special

education instruction, classroom support received from special education teachers/aides, special

education room program/structure, and behavioral support. Key questions that the clients wanted

assessed from parents evolved around: special education instruction, communication, inclusion,

behavioral model of Dubuque, support from district, and homework load.

Subjects

This study was chosen to look at the special education program model being used at

McLane Elementary School because of the recent change from categorical programming to

cross-categorical programming during the 2008-2009 school year. The study focused on what

aspects of the new program model were observed through parents of the students in the program

and the staff members at McLane Elementary.

Design

A management-oriented approach was used to guide the design and implementation of this

evaluation. More specifically, it served in the assessment ofthe cross-categorical program

model at McLane Elementary. Judgments of outcomes were collected to which a quantitative

evaluation was done by parent and teacher questionnaire responses. The evaluation was then

used to make recommendations identifying possible modifications to validate continuing the

cross-categorical program model at McLane Elementary.

Instrumentation

18

Two questionnaires were the tools developed to address the key questions that the clients

wanted assessed. Both questionnaires were designed to identify strengths and deficits of the

program and to solicit feedback that can be used to validate the program. One questionnaire was

configured to solicit feedback from the faculty while the other was developed to obtain

perspectives from parents. These tools were divided into distinct sections that featured multiple

items that asked the respondent to indicate the number oftimes he or she observed each variable.

A simple Likert scale was used to characterize the frequency of observations. More specifically,

it asked the respondent to indicate ifhe or she never, sometimes, often, or almost always

observed the variable in question.

Variables

The evaluation analyzed the following components from the staffs positioning by

utilization of a questionnaire: transitioning between classrooms, instruction given to special

education students, support provided for special education students, structure of the program, and

behavior support for those students who display behavioral disabilities. The boundaries that

were created in the parents positioning were: instruction given to their children, communication

between home and school, inclusion of children in general education opportunities, behavior

models for students with behavioral disabilities, support provided to parents by the school andlor

district, and homework load their students received.

19

Data Collection Procedures

The parent questionnaires were sent home with all students in special education along with

a letter explaining the purpose of the survey (see Appendix A and B). The teacher questionnaire

was placed into teacher mailboxes with an e-mail to follow-up with the explanation of the survey

(See Appendix C). The questionnaires were completed without the influence of the special'

education staff. The teachers and parents were allowed to complete the questionnaire on their

own time, and return to the special education staffs mailbox anonymously.

Data Analysis Procedures

The data collected from the teacher questionnaire was split by grade level, and then by

subject matter in order to calculate frequencies and percentages. The data collected from the

parent questionnaire were broken down by categories embedded in the questionnaire and used to

calculate frequencies and percentages. N in each table represents the number of respondents in

the sample that answered that specific question, as not all teachers/parents answered each

question. Totals were then generated for each area of never observed, sometimes observed, often

observed, and almost always observed. A total percentage was then calculated.

20

Chapter IV: Results

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to gather feedback from parents and staff regarding the

2008-2009 school years' implementation of the cross-categorical special education program

model being. More specifically it looked at what components of the cross-categorical program

model were being observed or not observed in the implementation ofthe program. Key

components the evaluation sought from staff members view points included: transitioning

between special education room and classroom, special education instruction, classroom support

received from special education teachers/aides, special education room program/structure, and

behavioral support. Where the parent questionnaire evolved around topics of: special education

instruction, communication, inclusion, behavioral model of Dubuque, support from district, and

homework load.

Setting

This project focused on McLane Elementary, an elementary school included in the West

Bend School district, located in the state of Wisconsin. The school was chosen because they

recently moved from a single-categorical program model that they have been using for the past

several years to a cross-categorical program model. McLane Elementary has a population of 609

students in grades kindergarten through fifth with 10.3% designated as special needs. See table

below for breakdown of students.

21

Table 1

Ethnicity at McLane Elementary

Percentage of Student's ethnicity at McLane Elementary

Student's Ethnicity Number Percentage

American Indianan 1 0.l6%

Asian 5 0.82%

African American 10 1.64%

Hispanic 18 2.96%

White 575 94.42%

Totals 609 100

Teacher Feedback

The first key question that the evaluation sought to answer on the staff questionnaire was:

How are students able to transition between the special education room and the regular education

classroom? To address this question the evaluator asked the faculty to recount how often they

observed students going from one classroom to the next in a quiet manner (see table 2).

Of the group whom completed the questionnaire 47% of staff members reported they

observed students moving quietly between classrooms. There was a breakdown in quiet

transitions while students were entering or exiting specials classes (art, music, physical

education). The one first grade teacher who responded did not always observe a quiet transition,

and was later identified as an area for improvement at that grade level.

22

Table 2

Transitioned Quietly Between Classrooms

The students transitioned quietly between the two classrooms

Almost Never Sometimes Often Always

Grade Levels Observed Observed Observed Observed n

Kindergarten 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 1 (100%) 1

First grade 0(0%) 1 (100%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 1

Second grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 2

Third Grade 0(0%) 2 (66%) 0(0%) 1 (33%) 3

Fourth Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (50%) 2 (50%) 4

Fifth Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 1 (50%) 1 (50%) 2

Special 2 (100%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2

Totals 2 (13%) 3 (20%) 3 (20%) 7 (47%) 15

To address the first key question, respondents were also asked about the students' ability

to be independently organized. More specifically, how often students were able to independently

organize the materials that they needed to take from one classroom to another (see Table 3).

Teachers reported that they observed students sometimes or often independently organizing

their materials 75% of the time, while 17% of the time teachers almost always observed students

being independently organized. The first grade teacher's response correlates from the previous

question in only sometimes being observed.

23

Table 3

Independently Organized Materials

The students independently organized his/her materials (as able) to be carried between classrooms



Kindergarten 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0

First grade 0(0%) 1 (100%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 1

Second grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 1 (50%) 1 (50%) 2

Third Grade 0(0%) 2 (66%) 1 (33%) 0(0%) 3

Fourth Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (66%) 1 (33%) 3

Fifth Grade 0(0%) 1 (50%) 1 (50%) 0(0%) 2

Special 1 (100%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 1

Totals 1 (8%) 3 (33%) 5 (42%) 2 (17%) 12

Another area of interest was the extent to which students were able to fall into the routines

of mainstream classrooms after being in the special education room. Therefore, the faculty was

asked to rate how often they observed students engaged in mainstream classroom activities (see

Table 4).

All the teachers in first, second, and fourth grade reported that they almost always observed

students being able to integrate back into classroom activities after returning from the special

education room. Notice that the first grade teacher's response has now become almost always

observed for this area in transition. Third grade teachers along with specials teachers often

24

observe that integration was successful, while the fifth grade teachers were split between being

sometimes and often observed.

Table 4

Integrated Back into Classroom Activities

The students successfully/independently integrated back into classroom activities after returning from the special education room



Kindergarten 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 1 (100%) 1

First grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 2

Second grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 2

Third Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 3 (100%) 0(0%) 3

Fourth Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 3 (100%) 3

Fifth Grade 0(0%) 1 (50%) 1 (50%) 0(0%) 2

Special 0(0%) 0(0%) 1 (100%) 0(0%) 1

Totals 0(0%) 1 (7%) 5 (36%) 8 (57%) 14

A fourth area of interest in relation to key question one was to what extent were students

able to handle their positive reinforcement in an appropriate manner not causing distractions in

the regular education classroom. Therefore the faculty was asked to recall the frequency of

students being reminded to appropriately take care of reinforcements earned in the special

education room (see Table 5).

25

Table 5

Care of Reinforcements

The students did not need to be reminded to appropriately handle/take care of reinforcement candy/prizes eared in the

special education room



Kindergarten 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 1 (100%) 1

First grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 1 (100%) 1

Second grade 0(0%) 1 (50%) 0(0%) 1 (50%) 2

Third Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 1 (50%) 1 (50%) 2

Fourth Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (50%) 2 (50%) 4

Fifth Grade 0(0%) 1 (50%) 1 (50%) 0(0%) 2

Special 1 (100%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 1

Totals 1 (8%) 2 (15%) 4 (31 %) 6 (46%) 13

When prizes were awarded to students in the special education room 77% of the staff

members often or almost always observed that students were able to take care of those rewards

independently. Specials teachers are not able to observe that students are doing this, however it

is not determined if students have rewards in those classes.

The final question regarding key question one of transitioning asked faculty to reflect on

the student's displayed attitudes when attending classes in the special education room. The staff

members were asked: To what extent do students appear to have a positive attitude about going

to the special education room (see Table 6)7

26

Table 6

Attitude Toward Special Education Room

The students appeared to have a positive attitude about going to the special education room



Kindergarten 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 1 (100%) 1

First grade 0(0%) 1 (50%) 0(0%) 1 (50%) 2

Second grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 2

Third Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 1 (33%) 2 (66%) 3

Fourth Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 4 (100%) 4

Fifth Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 0(0%) 2

Special 1 (100%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 1

Totals 1 (6.5%) 1 (6.5%) 3 (20%) 10 (67%) 15

Student's attitudes about going to the resource room appear to almost always be or often

observed to be positive 87% of the time. One first grade teacher still was only often able to

observe positive attitudes that students displayed. Students who leave specials to go to the

resource room do not have a positive attitude.

The second key question the evaluation sought to answer was: To what extend have staff

members recognized progress in the areas of academic instruction? To address this key question

the evaluator asked the faculty to reflect on observed student achievement throughout the 2008-

2009 school year (see Table 7).

27

Table 7

Special Education Instruction - Reading

Reading



Kindergarten 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0

First grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 1 (100%) 1

Second grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 1 (100%) 1

Third Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 1 (50%) 1 (50%) 2

Fourth Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 0(0%) 2

Fifth Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 0(0%) 2

Special 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0

Totals 0(0%) 0(0%) 5 (63%) 3 (37%) 8

Not all students who received special education services are pulled out for reading. Of

those students pulled out for reading, all teachers except specials and kindergarten have observed

at least some growth in the academic area of reading. Teachers who did not have students being

serviced were not included in the percentages.

Another academic area reflected in key question two was writing. Staff members were

asked to what extent was growth observed in writing (see Table 8).

28

Table 8

Special Education Instruction - Writing

Writing



Kindergarten 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0

First grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 1 (100%) 1

Second grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 1 (50%) 1 (50%) 2

Third Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 0(0%) 2

Fourth Grade 0(0%) 1 (100%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 1

Fifth Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(100%) 1 (100%) 1

Special 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0

Totals 0(0%) 1 (14%) 3 (43%) 3 (43%) 7

Not all students who received special education services are pulled out for writing. Of

those students pulled out for writing instruction all teachers have observed at least some growth

with the exception to a fourth grade teacher who only sometimes observed growth in writing.

Teachers who did not have students being serviced were not included in the averages.

Spelling is a third academic area that special education students received service in

therefore another component of key question two. The faculty was asked: To what extent was

progress observed in the academic area of spelling (see Table 9)7

29

Table 9

Special Education Instruction - Spelling

Spelling



Kindergarten 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0

First grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0

Second grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 1 (100%) 1

Third Grade 0(0%) 1 (50%) 1 (50%) 0(0%) 2

Fourth Grade 0(0%) 1 (100%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 1

Fifth Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 1 (100%) 0(0%) 1

Special 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0

Totals 0(0%) 2 (40%) 2 (40%) 1 (20%) 5

Those teachers, who had students pulled out for spelling sometimes or often times observed

academic improvement in the area of spelling 80% of the time. Only 20% almost always

observed academic progress made in spelling over the year. Again fourth grade only sometimes

observed growth, which correlates to what was answered in the academic area of writing.

The final academic area that the special education offers instruction in was Math. Faculty

was asked: To what extent was math growth observed? The results aided in answering key

question two (see Table 10).

30

Table 10

Special Education Instruction - Math

Math



Kindergarten 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0

First grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0

Second grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 1 (100%) 1

Third Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 1 (100%) 0(0%) 1

Fourth Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 1 (100%) 1

Fifth Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 1 (100%) 0(0%) 1

Special 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 1 (100%) 1

Totals 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (40%) 3 (60%) 5

The number of teachers who had students being serviced in the area of was a total of five.

All five ofthose teachers often to almost always observed academic growth in math. This means

that student's academic progress in math was easily visible within the regular education

classroom.

The final area of instruction that occurred in the special education classroom was behavior.

The faculty was asked: To what extent was behavior growth observed through the school year.

This final question around the area of instruction, answered key question two (see Table 11).

31

Table 11

Special Education Instruction - Behaviors

Behaviors


Grade Levers Observed Observed Observed Observed n

Kindergarten 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0

First grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 1 (50%) 1 (50%) 2

Second grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 2

Third Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 1 (50%) 1 (50%) 2

Fourth Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 1 (50%) 1 (50%) 2

Fifth Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 1 (100%) 1

Special 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 1 (100%) 1

Totals 0(0%) 0(0%) 3 (30%) 7 (70%) 10

Students who received support in the area of behavior issues from the special education

room made improvements throughout the year. This was reported by all teachers in McLane

Elementary that completed the questionnaire. This brings about a miscorrelation between

growth made academically and behaviorally.

In continuing to answer key question two the evaluator sought the teacher's levels of

observance on the curriculum being taught. The faculty was asked if they observed students

applying the skills they were taught in special education classroom in the general education

classroom (see Table 12).

32

Table 12

Generalize Skills to General Education Classrooms

Students were able to generalize skills worked on in the special education room to activities taking place in the general education classroom



Kindergarten 0(0%) 1 (100%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 1

First grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 2

Second grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 1 (50%) 1 (50%) 2

Third Grade 0(0%) 1 (33%) 2 (66%) 0(0%) 3

Fourth Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 1 (50%) 1 (50%) 2

Fifth Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 2

Special 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0

Totals 0(0%) 2 (17%) 4 (33%) 6 (50%) 12

A kindergarten and a third grade teacher only sometimes observed that students were able

to generalize the skills they learned from the resource room, which does not correlate about with

responses to what growth was observed in academic areas. However 83% of the teachers often

or almost always observed those taught skills being utilized in the general education setting.

Continuing with the second key question the evaluator sought out the pacing of the special

education curriculum. Faculty members were asked to recall the frequency in which they

observed the curriculum being appropriately paced (see Table 13).

33

Table 13

Pace of Special Education Instruction

Special Education Instruction appeared to be paced appropriately



Kindergarten 1 (100%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 1

First grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 2

Second grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 2

Third Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 1 (33%) 2 (66%) 3

Fourth Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 1 (100%) 1

Fifth Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 2

Special 1 (100%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 1

Totals 2 (17%) 0(0%) 1 (8%) 9 (75%) 12

According to the teachers who teach first, second, fourth, and fifth grade the curriculum

was observed in being appropriately paced. Those teachers in grades kindergarten, third, and

specials have not almost always observed the curriculum as being paced appropriately. Both of

these percentages correlate with what was asked in the previous question regarding the

generalization of skills.

The last question created to answer key question two involved teachers recalling the

materials being used in the special education classroom. Were the materials being used in the

special education observed as being instructionally sound (see Table 14)7

34

Table 14

Soundness of Special Education Instruction

Materials used for special education instruction appeared to appropriate and instructionally sound



Kindergarten 1 (100%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 1

First grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 2

Second grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 2

Third Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 2

Fourth Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 1 (100%) 1

Fifth Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 2

Special 1 (100%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 1

Totals 2 (18%) 0(0%) 0(8%) 9 (82%) 11

Although teachers do not always observe that students are able to generalize the skills they

are learning, 82% of the staff see that the special education curriculum at McLane Elementary is

almost always instructionally sound. A kindergarten teacher and a specials teacher did not

observe the same.

The third key question that the evaluation sought to answer was: Are the student's

receiving the proper amount of support from the special education teachers/aides in the

classroom? To answer this key question the evaluator created six questions on the questionnaire.

The first question asked staff members how they observed classroom work being promptly

completed (see Table 15).

35

Table 15

Work Completed in an Appropriate Time Frame

Classroom work was completed in an appropriate time frame



Kindergarten 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0

First grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 2

Second grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 1 (100%) 1

Third Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 1 (100%) 1

Fourth Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 3 (100%) 3

Fifth Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 1 (100%) 1

Special 1 (50%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 1 (50%) 2

Totals 1 (10%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 9 (90%) 10

Classroom teachers observed that student's work was completed in an appropriate time

frame. The one teacher whom disagreed was the specials teacher. Perhaps this difference was

because specials classes are not considered to be a core academic area.

A component of the cross-categorical program model was support given to students on

classroom-based projects. The evaluator asked for faculty to reflect on the observed support

given to special education students on assignments given in the regular education setting (see

Table 16).

36

Table 16

Support Provided to Students

The student received adequate/appropriate support when completing RBT's, writing activities, and classroom assignments



Kindergarten 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0

First grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 2

Second grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 1 (100%) 1

Third Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 2

Fourth Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 2

Fifth Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 2

Special 1 (50%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 1 (50%) 2

Totals 1 (9%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 10 (91 %) 11

The one specials teacher, who reported, is not observing support given in classroom

activities and/or assignments. All other academic teachers report that they almost always

observe that the appropriate support is given when needed.

Support is also given to special education students in studying for tests. To continue to

answer key question three the evaluator asked faculty to recount the amount of observed support

the students were given when studying (see Table 17).

37

Table 17

Support When Studying for Tests

The student's receive adequate/appropriate supports when studying for tests



Kindergarten 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0

First grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 2

Second grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 2

Third Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 2

Fourth Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 2

Fifth Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 2

Special 1 (100%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 1

Totals 1 (9%) 0(0%) 0(%) 10 (91 %) 11

Academic teachers observed that students are receiving the support they need when

studying for tests. The specials teachers do not observe that happening which continues to

correlate to the special education support he/she is observing taking place in his/her classroom.

After studying for test, the cross-categorical program model must then provide the

appropriate support to complete the test. This continued to answer key question three asking the

faculty to recount the observed support students where given in completing tests (see Table 18).

38

Table 18

Support When Completing Tests

The student's receive adequate/appropriate supports when completing tests



Kindergarten 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0

First grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 2

Second grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 2

Third Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 2

Fourth Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 3 (100%) 3

Fifth Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 2

Special 1 (100%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 1

Totals 1 (8%) 0(0%) 0(%) 11 (92%) 12

Academic teachers reported that they had observed students receiving the support they

needed when taking tests. Again, the specials teachers do not observe that happening.

The fifth question that aided in answering key question three concerned, holding students

to high standards. The evaluator asked the faculty to recall the observed standards that the

special education students were held to in comparison to non-disabled peers (see Table 19).

39

Table 19

Standards and Quality of Work

When appropriate, the students were held to the same standards/quality of work as that of his/her non-disabled peers



Kindergarten 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 1 (100%) 1

First grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 2

Second grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 2

Third Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 2

Fourth Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 3 (100%) 3

Fifth Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 1 (50%) 1 (50%) 2

Special 0(0%) 0(0%) 1 (50%) 1 (50%) 2

Totals 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (14%) 12 (86%) 14

Teachers reported that they often observe or almost always observe that students who

have special needs are being held the same standards/quality of work of those peers who are non-

disabled. The specials teachers who responded had observed this in comparison to other

questions relating to support they observe being given in their classrooms.

The final question on the questionnaire that aided in answering key question three was in

regards to students feeling success in the general education setting. Staff members were asked to

recall how often they had observed students receiving adequate support from the special

education room in order to feel that success (see Table 20).

40

Table 20

Adequate Support for Academic Success

The students receive adequate support from the special education room to experience success when he/she was in the regular education curriculum.



Kindergarten 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0

First grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 2

Second grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 2

Third Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 2

Fourth Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 2

Fifth Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 2

Special 0(0%) 0(0%) 1 (50%) 1 (50%) 2

Totals 0(0%) 0(0%) 1 (8%) 11 (92%) 12

Teachers observed that the students received adequate support from the special education

room to experience success when he/she was in the regular education curriculum 100% of the

time. This differs from what the specials teachers answered in previous questions regarding

specific support structures in the classroom.

The fourth key question the evaluation sought to answer was: Is the special education

program structure/room set up in an effective way for students and teachers? To answer this

question the evaluator asked five various questions surrounding the topic of structure. First, the

faculty was asked how they observed the special education staff in their willingness to accept

input from others (see Table 21).

41

Table 21

Special Education Faculty Openness

The special education teacher was easily approachable and openly accepted input from others.



Kindergarten 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 1 (100%) 1

First grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 2

Second grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 2

Third Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 3 (100%) 3

Fourth Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 4 (100%) 4

Fifth Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 2

Special 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 2

Totals 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 16 (100%) 16

Teachers almost always observed that they were able to approach the special education

teacher. All teachers including two specials teachers were in agreement with this.

The evaluator next sought the teachers to reflect on how they observed the accessibility of

the special education teachers. This continued to aid in answering key question four (see Table

22).

42

Table 22

Special Education Faculty Accessibility

The special education teacher was accessible for the communication needs between special education and regular education



Kindergarten 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 1 (100%) 1

First grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 2

Second grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 2

Third Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 3 (100%) 3

Fourth Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 4 (100%) 4

Fifth Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 2

Special 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 2

Totals 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 16 (100%) 16

Teachers almost always observed that the special education teacher was accessible for the

communication needs between special education and regular education. All teachers were in

agreement with this correlating the answers to the previous question.

Continuing with key question four, the evaluator sought to answer a question regarding

flexibility within the new program model. Teachers reflected on what they observed daily in

regards to the flexibility of the special education teacher when working with the general

education classroom (see Table 23).

43

Table 23

Special Education Faculty Flexibility

The special education teacher was flexible when working with the general education classroom schedule



Kindergarten 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 1 (100%) 1

First grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 2

Second grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 2

Third Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 3 (100%) 3

Fourth Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 4 (100%) 4

Fifth Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 2

Special 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 2

Totals 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 16 (100%) 16

The teachers reported that they almost always observed that the special education teacher

was flexible when working with the general education classroom schedule. This emphasizes the

answers that were given in the above relating questions.

A component of the cross-categorical program model was the pull-out of students when

appropriate. Faculty members were asked to recount the observed times students were pulled out

of the general education classroom at appropriate times to aide in answering key question four

(see Table 24).

44

Table 24

Special Education Student Pull-out

The special education students were pulled-out when appropriate



Kindergarten 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 1 (100%) 1

First grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 2

Second grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 2

Third Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 3 (100%) 3

Fourth Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 4 (100%) 4

Fifth Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 2

Special 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 2

Totals 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 16 (100%) 16

Teachers at McLane Elementary almost always observed that the special education students

were pulled-out when appropriate. The data correlates with the continuing theme that staff

members almost always are observing the appropriate classroom and program structure.

In regards to key question four, question five gathered data on what the faculty observed

regarding the inclusion of students in the general education classroom. The question was

specified as such: Were students in special education included in the general education

classroom when appropriate (see Table 25)7

45

Table 25

Student Inclusion in the General Education

The students in special education were included in the general education classroom when appropriate



Kindergarten 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 1 (100%) 1

First grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 2

Second grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 2

Third Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 3 (100%) 3

Fourth Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 4 (100%) 4

Fifth Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 2

Special 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 2

Totals 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 16 (100%) 16

Of the times when special education students needed to be pulled out of the general

education setting the teachers almost always observed that the students were then included

during appropriate times. This was shown across grade levels as well as in specials classes.

Key question five of the evaluation sought to answer: Is the behavioral support available

for staff members and students in the building that require the extra support? To answer this

question the evaluator examined what the teachers reported being observed. Teachers were

asked how they observed the special education teacher holding students accountable in

comparison to non-disabled peers (see Table 26).

46

Table 26

Reinforcement of Social and Behavioral Standards

Special education teachers appeared to reinforce and hold students to the same social and behavioral standard as non-disabled students



Kindergarten 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 1 (100%) 1

First grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 1 (50%) 1 (50%) 2

Second grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 2

Third Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 3 (100%) 3

Fourth Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 4 (100%) 4

Fifth Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 2

Special 0(0%) 0(0%) 1 (50%) 1 (50%) 2

Totals 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (12%) 14 (88%) 16

Across the building, staff members observed that special education students were held to

the same standard as non-disabled students. One specials teacher, and one first grade teacher

often observed this instead of almost always observing this.

The next question in relation to key question five was around supports teachers felt they

were given when coming across students displaying difficult behaviors. The evaluator asked:

When behavior situations arouse was the regular education teacher being supported by the

special education teacher (see Table 27)?

47

Table 27

Support from Special Education with Behavior

The special education teacher supported me (as a teacher) with students when they had behavior difficulties



Kindergarten 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0

First grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 2

Second grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 2

Third Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 3 (100%) 3

Fourth Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 4 (100%) 4

Fifth Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 2

Special 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 2

Totals 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 16 (100%) 16

When teachers have needed support they have almost always observed that the special

education teacher was supportive. This included both the regular education teacher and the

special education teacher when dealing with behaviors. The specials teachers observed that they

did not receive the support in other classroom areas such as projects, and assignments.

Key question five of the evaluation sought to answer: Is the behavioral support available

for staff members and students in the building that require additional support? Dubuque was a

large, new component of the cross-categorical program model at McLane Elementary. In

relation to key question five the evaluation asked the faculty if they observed themselves having

the proper knowledge of Dubuque to use utilize it effectively in their classroom (see Table 28).

48

Table 28

Knowledge of DUBUQUE

I felt that I had the proper knowledge of DUBUQUE to use it in an effective way with EBD students in my classroom



Kindergarten 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0

First grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0

Second grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 1 (100%) 0(0%) 1

Third Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 3 (100%) 3

Fourth Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 2

Fifth Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 1 (100%) 1

Special 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 0(0%) 2

Totals 0(0%) 0(0%) 3 (33%) 6 (67%) 9

Not all staff members used Dubuque however; of the nine staff members who do, they feel

as though they often or almost always observe that they have knowledge of the program to

implement it in their classroom. However, at least nine teachers do not use Dubuque and

therefore have no knowledge of the program.

In regards to key question five, faculty members were asked to examine the communication

between themselves and special education staff. More specifically the question asked teachers if

they observed an open line of communication between special education staff and themselves

when behavior situations arose (see Table 29).

49

Table 29

Open Communication Regarding Behavior

Communication was open between the special education staff and myself when behavior situations arose



Kindergarten 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0

First grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 2

Second grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 1 (50%) 1 (50%) 2

Third Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 3 (100%) 3

Fourth Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 3 (100%) 3

Fifth Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 2

Special 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 2

Totals 0(0%) 0(0%) 1 (7%) 13 (93%) 14

An open line of communication was almost always observed as being open between staff

members when behavior situations arose. Data reports this to be true across all grade levels.

The final key question the evaluation sought to answer from the staff members was: Do

staff members and parents feel that the new cross-categorical program model at McLane

Elementary better fits the needs of the special education population? To answer this question the

evaluator asked if the staff members observed that the cross-categorical program model was

meeting the needs of the student's individual education needs (see Table 30).

50

Table 30

Overall Impressions of the Program

Overall the cross-categorical program model meets the needs of the student's individual education needs



Kindergarten 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0

First grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 1 (100%) 0(0%) 1

Second grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 2

Third Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 1 (50%) 1 (50%) 2

Fourth Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 2

Fifth Grade 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2 (100%) 2

Special 0(0%) 0(0%) 1 (50%) 1 (50%) 2

Totals 0(0%) 0(0%) 3 (27%) 8 (73%) 11

Overall, the teachers at McLane Elementary often or almost always observed that the cross-

categorical program model at McLane Elementary is meeting the student's individual

educational needs, which emphasized that the questions teachers answered never observed or

often do not observe mean there is not a negative impact on the overall function of the special

education program.

Parent Feedback

The first key question that the evaluation sought to answer with the parent questionnaire

was: To what extent have parents recognized progress in the academic areas? To address this

51

question the evaluator asked the parents to characterize how often they observed their student

perform better in the areas of reading, writing, spelling and mathematics (see Table 31).

Table 31

Perceptions of Academic Progress

Throughout the year, you were able to recognize academic progress in the areas your student(s) received special education

instruction for: Reading, Writing, Spelling, Math



Totals for Reading 1 (7%) 3 (20%) 5 (33%) 6 (40%) 15

Totals for Writing 0(0%) 6 (43%) 5 (36%) 3 (21%) 14

Totals for Spelling 1 (8%) 3 (23%) 4 (31 %) 5 (38%) 13

Totals for Math 1 (7%) 3 (21 %) 4 (29%) 6 (43%) 14

The most frequently observed areas of academic growth came in the areas of reading, math,

and spelling. Writing growth was sometimes observed by 43% of parents. This table also shows

that the largest area students receive support in is the area of math followed by writing and math

finally spelling.

Key question two of the evaluation asked: Are there open lines of communication between

home and school that support the student? More specifically it asked if parents knew what

learning or activities were taking place with their child, if the IEP coordinator was in

communication with the parents regarding areas of strengths and areas of improvement, and did

they IEP coordinator providing prompt feedback (see Table 32)?

52

Table 32

Communication


Observed Observed Observed Observed n

As a parent I felt like I knew 1 (6%) 5 (29%) 7 (41 %) 4 (24%) 17 what was happening at school with my child

As a parent I felt like I could 0(0%) 2 (11%) 4 (24%) 11 (65%) 17 contact my student's IEP Coordinator/Special Education teacher

The special education teacher 1 (6%) 2 (12%) 8 (47%) 6 (35%) 17 communicated with me positives/strengths my students displayed

The special education teacher 0(0%) 2 (12%) 9 (53%) 6 (35%) 17 communicated with me any areas of concerns/behaviors/weaknesses my student displayed

Questions/Comments/Concerns 0(0%) 2 (12%) 8 (47%) 7 (41%) 17 were addressed by the special education teacher in a timely manner

The majority of parents, 65% of them often or almost always observed that they knew what

had been happening at school concerning their child. The majority of parents, 89% often

observed or almost always observed that they could contact their student's IEP coordinators. Of

the parents who took the questionnaire 14 of the 17 parents agreed that they often observed or

almost always observed that positives/strengths were shared with them by the special education

teacher which correlated with the ease of being able to communicate with their student's IEP

53

coordinator. Of the parents who tookthe questionnaire 15 of the 17 parents agreed that they

often observed or almost always observed that concerns/behaviors/weaknesses were shared with

them by the special education teacher again correlating with the question relating to

communicating strengths and ease of communication. Parents often and almost always observed

that their Questions/Comments/Concerns were addressed by the special education teacher in a

timely manner. This data demonstrated that the overall observation of communication was often

or almost always observed by parents.

The third key question the evaluation sought to answer asked: To what extent do parents

see that their child is included within the different environments in McLane Elementary? More

specifically the evaluator asked the parents if they observed their child being part of the general

education classroom, and part ofthe "McLane Family" (see Table 33).

Table 33

Inclusion


Parents Observed Observed Observed Observed n

As a parent you felt like your 0(0%) 2 (12%) 7 (41%) 8 (47%) 17 child was a part of the general education classroom when appropriate

As a parent you felt that your 0(0%) 3 (19%) 3 (19%) 10 (62%) 16 child was part of the "McLane Family" and included in events non-disabled peers participated in

Parents reported that they often and almost always observed that their child was included in

the general education classroom when appropriate. Two parents observed that this was only

sometimes done with their students. Although 62% of the parents almost always observed that

54

their child was part of the "McLane Family," 38% ofthe parents sometimes or often observed

that their students were apart of the "McLane Family." This data differs from the previous

question. More parents only sometimes or often observed their students being a part ofthe "The

McLane Family."

The fourth key question the evaluation sought to answer was: Is the current behavior model

of Dubuque understood and effective for their children? The evaluator asked parents to recall

what they observed regarding their general understanding of Dubuque, the level of motivation

the tool provided, the daily communication it provided, and the overall effectiveness on their

children's behavior (see Table 34).

Table 34

Behavior Models



As a parent you have a general 2 (18%) 1 (9%) 5 (45%) 3 (28%) 11 understanding of the Dubuque system

The Dubuque point sheet is a 2 (20%) 2 (20%) 2 (20%) 4 (40%) 10 good motivator for my student

The Dubuque point sheet allows 1 (11 %) 2 (22%) 2 (22%) 4 (44%) 9 me to see how my students behavior was throughout the day

As the year progressed my 1 (9%) 6 (55%) 1 (9%) 3 (27%) 11 child's behavior improved during the school day

There was a wide variety of what parents observed regarding the Dubuque behavior

models. Of the parents surveyed 27% of the parents never or sometimes observed that they had

55

an understanding on Dubuque while 28% almost always observed the understanding. Parents

have a variety of observations regarding the point sheet component within Dubuque. While 60%

ofthe parents often or almost always observed that point sheet was effective, 40% never or only

sometimes observed that the point sheet was a good motivator for their student. These results

correlate with the general understanding of Dubuque from the previous question. The majority

of parents 66% agreed that they often or almost always observe that the point sheet allows them

to see how their child's behavior was throughout the day. While, 33% of parents reported that

they never or only sometimes were able to observe how their student's behavior progressed

through the day. The majority of parents sometimes observed that their child's behavior

improved during the school day while only 36% often or almost always observed an

improvement in their child's behavior.

The fifth key question the evaluation sought to answer was: To what extent have parents

observed additional support from the district being provided? More specifically the evaluator

sought out parents to recall observed support given to strengthen parent knowledge and

understanding of a variety of needs special education students have, along with being provided

support from other families who have students with individual needs (see Table 35).

Parents often observed or almost always observed that the district provided opportunities

for them to strengthen their knowledge and understanding of a variety of needs special education

students have. Majority of parents except for one often or almost always observed that the

district provided support from other parents/families of other students who have special

education needs children. Two more families almost always observed getting support from other

parents/families in comparison to the previous question regarding opportunities provided to

strengthen knowledge.

56

Table 35

Support



The district provided 0(0%) 1 (6%) 11 (69%) 4 (25%) 16 opportunities for us to strengthen our knowledge and understanding of a variety of needs special education students have

The district provided a method of 0(0%) 1 (6%) 9 (56%) 6 (38%) 16 support from other parents/families of other students who have special educational needs

Key question six for the evaluation sought to answer: What is the observed homework load

for your child in special education? Parents were asked if they observed the homework load

being too heavy, reasonable, or more homework needs to be given to my students (see Table 36).

Table 36

Homework

Parents

Totals

Please mark what best fits your opinion of your student's homework load

Too Heavy Reasonable

5 (29%) 11 (65%)

I would like my student to have more homework

1 (6%)

n

17

57

The majority of parents agree that the homework load is reasonable for their students at

McLane Elementary. Almost a third reported the homework load was too heavy while only one

parent thought more homework was warranted.

The final key question that the evaluator sought to answer was: Do parents feel that the

new cross-categorical program model at McLane Elementary better fits the needs of the special

education population? More specially, the question asked parents how they observed that the

cross-categorical program model meeting the student's individual education needs (see Table

37).

Table 37

Overall Perception of the Program

Overall the cross-categorical program model meets the needs of the student's individual education needs

Parents

Totals

Never Observed

0(0%)

Sometimes Often Observed Observed

1 (6%) 10 (63%)

Almost Always

Observed

5 (31 %)

n

16

Parents feel as though they often observe or almost always observe (94%) that the cross-

categorical program model meets the needs of the student's individual educational needs. This

correlates to what was reported by staff members at McLane Elementary.

Chapter V: Discussion

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to gather feedback from the 2008-2009 school year needed

to improve the cross-categorical special education program model being used at McLane

Elementary to service students with Learning Disabilities (LD), Emotional Behavioral

Disabilities (EBD), Other Health Impairments (OHI), Cognitive Disabilities (CD) and

58

Autism! Aspergers during the upcoming years. A management-oriented approach was used to

gather feedback regarding the extent to which selected components of the cross-categorical

program were observed by parents and faculty. A survey methodology was employed to gather

the required data via a questionnaire.

This chapter describes the setting in which the evaluation was conducted. It will also

summarize of results ofthe inquiry, present the conclusions that were drawn, and propose a set

of recommendations for improving the program.

Setting

This project was implemented at McLane Elementary; an elementary school part of the

West Bend School District in the state of Wisconsin. The school was chosen because McLane

Elementary recently moved from a single-categorical program model that they have been using

for the past several years to a cross-categorical program model. McLane Elementary has a

population of 609 students in grades kindergarten through 5th with 10.3% designated as special

needs.

Findings-Faculty Feedback

59

The majority of staff members almost always observed successful transitions between the

general education classroom and the resource room. Higher responses (1 or more) of never and

sometimes observed occurred in the transition areas of: quietness, organization of materials, and

appropriately taking care of positive reinforcements that were given while being in the special

education room. The strongest transition components fell into the areas of displaying a positive

attitude about the resource room and integrating smoothly back into the regular education

classroom after being in the resource room.

Ofthe five categories of instruction that special education offers at McLane Elementary,

the almost always observed improvements occurred in math and behaviors. Growth in reading

instruction was often observed 67% of the time and almost always observed 37% of the time.

Academic progress in writing was split evenly with 43% of teachers often and almost always

observing growth. Spelling was the largest area of weakness with 40% often observing and 40%

sometimes observing growing leaving only 20% to almost always see growth.

With the skills students were learning in the special education room, only 50% of the

teachers reported they almost always observed that the students are able to generalize their skills

into the regular education classroom. The other 50% are split; 17% say they sometimes observed

the generalization and 33% report they often observed the generalization of skills. With the split

of opinions it is surprising to see that 75% agree they the special education curriculum is almost

always observed at being appropriately paced and 82% agree that it is instructionally sound.

Classroom support is one of the strengths of the program component at McLane

Elementary. Of all six questions relating to this topic on the questionnaire the highest percentage

score of each question fell in the almost always-observed area ranging from 86% to 100% of the

60

reporting faculty. Two questions regarding classroom work support, and test support had a never

observed response from the specials teachers.

Program structure was the highest almost always observed response with 100% of all

teachers. All faculty members responded in agreement that the special education program and

structure is easily approachable, accessible for communication, and offers flexibility. The

program pulled out students when appropriate, and included students in the general education

setting when appropriate.

All sixteen staff members who responded observed they almost always had support 100%

of the time when dealing with behaviors and 93% of fourteen observed that the line of

communication was open when behavior situations arose. Areas where the almost always

observed percentages lowered were in: special education students were being held to the same

social and behavioral standards (88% almost always observed and 12% often observed) and the

knowledge of the Dubuque system (67% almost always observed and 33% often observed).

Parent Feedback

The components that parents had a high response percentage in the almost always-observed

areas were in: reading (43%) math (43%), and spelling (38%). In the academic area of spelling

43% of parents sometimes observed growth.

No one specific area of communication stood out above the others. Overall, 24% of

parents almost always observed knowing what was happening with their son/daughter at school,

while the majority 41 % reported often observing knowing what was occurring at school. Two

interesting correlations were between how parents felt about communicating with their child's

IEP coordinator and the quickness of the teacher's response to their questions/comments. The

61

majority or 65% of parents almost always observed they could contact the IEP coordinator while

only 41 % almost always observed timely feedback from the special education teacher.

Around the areas of inclusion parents reported different observations on how their children

were incorporated into the general education classroom in comparison with being a part of the

"McLane Family." Of the 17 parents who responded 47% almost always observed that their

child was a part ofthe general education classroom when appropriate, while 41 % often observed

this, and 12% reported they sometimes observed this occurring. Sixteen parents responded to

how their child felt to be included in the "McLane Family." Parents reported that 62% of them

almost always observed that their child was a part of that family, 19% said they often observed

this, and 19% said they only sometimes observed this happening. More parents observed their

child being a part of the "McLane Family", than being a part ofthe general education classroom

when appropriate.

Parent's response to the behavior model of Dubuque was spread across all areas from never

being observed to almost always being observed through the different questions. The only

percentage area above fifty occurred in response to the statement: As the year progressed, my

child's behavior improved during the school day. Of the eleven parents who responded 55%

agreed that this was sometimes observed. Overall, parents reported outcomes from the behavior

models being often or sometiples observed by parents.

In response to both questions around the areas of additional support being given to

strengthen parent knowledge and understanding of a variety of needs special education students

69% often observed the district providing opportunities to learn more while 56% often observed

support being given from other parents/families. No parent reported that they never observed

62

support being given. However, one parent reported that they only sometimes observe additional

support being given.

Of the seventeen parents who responded to the survey 65% reported that they observed the

homework to be an adequate amount for their student. It was seldom reported that parents

observed their children having too much, or not enough homework.

Staff members and parents feel a subtle difference about the effectiveness regarding the

cross-categorical program model at McLane Elementary. While 73% of staff members feel that

the cross-categorical model is almost always observed at meeting the student's individual needs,

only 31 % of the parents agree with this being almost always observed. When in comparison the

majority of parents, 63% say that they often observe the program meeting the student's

individual needs.

Conclusion

The idea of having a cross-categorical program model in which a resource room is utilized

to accommodate those students who need extra help in specific academic areas creates the

component of transitioning from room to room. The strength in the area of transitions is that

staff often observed students abilities to integrate themselves back into the classroom after

returning from the special education room. Students positive attitudes were also observed when

going to the special education room to receive academic instruction or additional. Staff members

have not observed that students are able to independently organize their materials to go into the

resource room or transition quietly between the two rooms.

The component of the cross-categorical program model that had the least amount of

observation occurring, causing a rise of concern, was in the behavior model. Parents rep~rted

that their knowledge ability, motivation for their children, and improved behavior was only

almost always observed 40% of the time.

63

A theme that had some inconsistencies fell under the category of classroom work receiving

support from special education teachers/aides. The classroom teachers reported that they had

almost always observed support being given while specials teachers did not. Specials teachers

reported they did not observe classroom work being completed in an appropriate time frame,

classroom work receiving support from special education teachers/aides, and student's receiving

adequate/appropriate supports when studying and taking tests.

Recommendations

With the number of special education students increasing in public education every year, it

is important to create an optimal program that best fits the needs of the students attending that

school. Parents and staff have a difference of opinions in some areas; however both are

important in creating a positive learning environment for students. Some ways to enhance the

cross-categorical program model at McLane Elementary are:

1. Increase communication between home and school: An open line of communication

often lets parents feel as though their input is just as important as the teachers. Create

and write in a weekly or daily journal/report cards depending on the students, to allow

communication to take place. Make an attempt to call home with five good news

reports for everyone negative news report.

2. Parent Dubuque Training: Offer a time before and/or after school where parents who

have students on the Dubuque behavior model can learn the basics of the system.

3. Staff Dubuque Training: Offer a time prior to the school year starting where staff

members who want to gain knowledge about the use of Dubuque in their classrooms

can come and be taught.

4. Model Transition Times: The first few weeks of the school year have the students

practice what they should do when moving from their regular education classroom to

the special education resource room. Offer checklists to place on desks to ensure that

students have all necessary materials when going from room to room.

64

5. Academic Areas: Consult as a special education team regarding resources in the areas

of writing, and spelling. Discuss with regular education teachers the curriculum they

utilize in their classrooms and how that can be adopted into the special education

curriculum.

6. Support for Specials Classes: The special education staff should sit down withthe

specials teachers and discuss where more support needs to be given in their classrooms.

Choosing a special education program delivery model is not is a task that is not easy nor

should be taken lightly. Constant communication between general education teachers, parents,

and administration creates opportunities for growth and development throughout the year.

Special education is constaI}.tly changing therefore so are the programs in which students with

special needs are serviced. However most importantly, the student's needs are what must be

considered when developing the model at any school.

65

References

Bouck, C., E. (2008). Exploring the enactment of functional curriculum in self-contained cross

categorical programs: A case study. The Qualitative Report, 13(3), 495-530.

Burmaster, E. (2009). Special education data. Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction.

Retrieved April 16, 2008, from http://dpi.wi.gov/sped/dm-speceddata.html

Chamberlin, S. (2006). Don Deshler: Perspectives on teaching students with learning

disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 1(5), 302-306.

Cushing, L., Clark, N., Carter, E., & Kennedy, C. (2005). Access to the general education

curriculum for students with significant cognitive disabilities. Teaching Exceptional

Children, 38(2),6-13.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990.20 U.S.C § 1400 et seq. (1990) (amended

1997,2004).

Kutash, K, Duchnowski, A., Robbins, V., Calvanese, P., Oliverira, B., Black, M., & Vaughn, D.

(2000). The school and community study: Characteristics of students who have emotional

and behavioral disabilities served in restructuring public school. Journal of Child and

Family Studies, 9(2), 175-190.

Landrum, T., Tankersley, M., & Kauffman, J. (2003). What is special about special education

for students with emotional or behavioral disorders? The Journal of Special Education,

37(3), 148-156.

Leal, D., Smith, S., Shank, M., Turnbull, A., & Turnbull, R. (2002). Exceptional lives: Special

education in today's schools (3 rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, PA: Pearson.

Lloyd, J., Forness, S., & Kavale, K (1998, March). Some methods are more effective than

others. Intervention in School and Clinic, 33(4), 195.

Muscott, H. (1995). A process for facilitating the appropriate inclusion of students with

emotional/behavioral disorders. Education and Treatment o/Children, 18(3),369.

Palley, E. (2006). Challenges of a rights-based law: Implementing the least restrictive

environment. Mandate Journal 0/ Disabilities Policy Studies, 16(44), 229-235.

Peters, M., & Heron, T. (1993). When the best is not good enough: An examination of best

practice. The Journal o/Special Education, 26(4),371-385.

Schwarz, A. (2007). Special education: A service, not a sentence. Association/or Supervision

and Curriculum Development, 39-42.

66

Sparks, R. & Richardson, S. (1981). Multicategorical/Cross-Categorial classrooms for learning

disabled students. Journal 0/ Learning Disabilities, 14(2), 60-61.

Vallecorsa, A. (1983). Cross-categorical resource programs: An emerging trend in special

education. Education, 104(2), 131-137.

Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. (2009). Eligibility checklist specific learning

disability initial checklist. Retrieved April 21, 2009, from

http:// dpi. wi. gov Iformsl doc/felg-sld -00 l.doc

Appendix A

Parent Survey

67

Parent Survey

Please complete the following survey using the scale below: 0= never observed 1= sometimes observed 2= often observed 3= almost always observed

Special Education Instruction

Throughout the year, you were able to recognize academic progress in the areas your student(s) received special education instruction for:

Reading ............................................................. . Writing ........................................................... . Spelling .............................................................. . Math .................................................................. .

o o o o

Communication

a. As a parent I felt like I knew what was happening at school with my child .......................................................

b. As a parent I felt like I could contact my student's IEP Coordinator/Special Education teacher ..............................

c. The special education teacher communicated with me positives/strengths my student displayed ..............................

d. The special education teacher communicated with me any areas of concerns/behaviors/weaknesses my student display

e. Question/Comments/Concerns were addressed by the special education teacher in a timely manner ..........................

Inclusion

a. As a parent you felt like your child was a part of the general

1 1 1 1

0

0

0

0

0

education classroom when appropriate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 b. As a parent you felt that your child was a part of the "McLane Family"

and included in events non-disabled peers participated in .............. 0

Behavior Models

a. As a parent you have a general understanding of the Dubuque system .................................................... 0 1

b. The Dubuque point sheet is a good motivator for my student ................................................................ 0 1

c. The Dubuque point sheet allows me to see how my students behavior was throughout the day ................................ 0 1

d. As the year progressed my child's behavior improved during the school day .t ............................................ 0 1

2 2 2 2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

3 3 3 3

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

N/A N/A N/A N/A

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

NA

NA

NA

NA

Support

a. The district provided opportunities for us to strengthen our knowledge and understanding of a variety of needs special education students have . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0

b. The district provided a method of support from other parents/families of other students who have special educational needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0

1 2

1 2

Homework: Please mark what best fits your opinion of your student's homework load

Homework load is too heavy,

Homework load is reasonable.

I would like my students to have more homework.

Overall the cross-categorical program model meets the student's individual education needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0 1 2

3

3

3

General comments/suggestion for more effectively meeting the needs of the special education population at McLane Elementary:

69

AppendixB

Letter to Parents

70

May 14,2009

Dear Parents/Guardians:

For those of you who do not know me, my name is Melissa Bobinski and I am the special

educati~n teacher for Kindergarten and 3rd grade here at McLane. I am currently in my last

semester of graduate school at University of Wisconsin-Stout where I will graduate in August

with my Masters in Education. For my thesis I am completing an evaluation of the special

education cross-categorical program model at McLane Elementary. This is where I need your

help.

Attached is a survey, which I am asking each family who has a student with special needs

to fill out. The feedback that you are able to give me will help complete my report on the

special education model. In advance, I appreciate your time and thoughts that you put into this

survey. Please return the survey to your students IEP Coordinator by Friday May 22, 2009. If

you feel that your student is unable to bring the survey back to school, please drop it off in the

office or mail it to school. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call me at 335-

7866 or e-mail [email protected]

Sincerely,

Melissa J. Bobinski

Appendix C

Staff Survey

Staff Survey

Please complete the following survey using the scale below: **Grade level you teach __ 0= never observed 1 = sometimes observed 2= often observed 3= almost always observed

Transition between special education room and classroom

a. The students transitioned quietly between the two classrooms ...................................................................

b. The students independently organized his/her materials (as able) to be carried between classrooms ...............................

c. The students successfully/independently integrated back into classroom activities after returning from the special education room .............................................................

d. The students did not need to be reminded to appropriately handle/take are of reinforcement candy/prizes earning the in special education room ..............................................

e. The students appeared to have a positive attitude about going to the special education classroom ..................................

Special Education Instruction

0 1 2 3

0 1 2 3

0 1 2 3

0 1 2 3

0 1 2 3

a. Throughout the year, you were able to recognize academic progress in the areas the student received instruction in the special education room:

Reading ............................................................ 0 Writing ............................................................. 0 Spelling.............................................................. 0 Math .................................................................. 0 Behavior .......................................................... .

b. The students were able to generalize skills worked on in the special education room to activities taking place in the

o

1 1 1 1 1

general education classroom ..... : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 c. Special' Education instruction appeared to be paced

appropriately . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 d. Materials used for special education instruction appeared

appropriate and instructionally sound .................................... . 0

2 2 2 2 2

1

1

1

3 3 3 3 3

2

2

2

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

3

3

3

Classroom Work Receiving Support from Special Education Teachers/Aides

a. Classroom work was completed in an appropriate time frame ... .. . . . . 0 b. The students received adequate/appropriate support when

completing RBT's, writing activities, and classroom assignments.... 0 c. The students received adequate/appropriate supports when

completing tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0 d. The students received adequate/appropriate supports when

studying for tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 e. When appropriate, the students were held to the same

standards/quality of work as that of his/her non-disabled peers........ 0 f. The students received adequate support from the special

education room to experience success when he/she was in the regular education curriculum . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0

Special Education Room Program/Structure

a. The Special Education teacher was easily approachable and openly accepted input from others . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . 0

b. The Special Education teacher was accessible for the communication needs between special education and regular education . . . . . . ... . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . 0

c. The Special Education teacher was flexible when with the general education classroom schedule .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .. .. .. .. .. .... ... 0

d. The Students in special education were pulled-out when appropriate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 0

e. The Students in special educational were included in the general education classroom when appropriate ...................... , . .. 0

Behavioral Support

a. Special Education teachers appeared to reinforce and hold students to the same social and behavior standard as non-disabled students .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. .. .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. 0

b. The Special Education teacher supported me (as a teacher) with students when they had behavior difficulties ........................ 0

c. I felt that I had the proper knowledge of Dubuque to use it in an effective way with EBD students in my classroom . . . .. . . .. . . . 0

d. Communication was open between the special education and myself when behavior arose ................................. .... . . . . . . . 0

Overall the cross-categorical program model meets the student'~ individual education needs ................... ,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0

74

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

Date post:	20-May-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

An Analysis of the Cross-Categorical Special Education A … · 2011-05-31 · An Analysis of the...

Documents